Do you throw or twist?

[johnrobison]

17 hours ago, johnrobison said:

What if the intent was to move your hands instead of your arms?

1 hour ago, PJ1120 said:

 

Interesting thought

I tend to do well with the intent to accelerate the left arm (release PA#4), especially when my conscious focus is on maintaining the left arm pressure point, getting my left shoulder down, and not "chasing" it with my upper body (just some personal issues). However, a really good feel and visualization for me in the past has also been to try to get both of my hands as far away from my right shoulder as possible with as much speed as I can move them. With that intent, it can't be just about the hands, since dropping my right shoulder and "chasing" are both counterproductive to getting my hands as far away as possible. So... similar results, just different feels.

[moehogan]

3 hours ago, golfsticks said:

 

Looking at that in over the top throws, probably has not much to do with lead arm and more with the trail arm and how it's bent-loaded at various locations.    Will look at side arm and submarine too.  The tuck you mentioned would be the lead wrist flexion offsetting the accelerating trail arm's wrist extension?  Never really looked at this relationship before, kind of fun exploring. 

The pitcher’s “tuck” is the position where the lead leg is unweighted and is raised parallel to the ground just prior to its stride to the plate. At this point the pitcher also has maximum body coil so I saw that as P4ish. So P5 would then be the first part of the stride as the arm starts to extend behind him and the right wrist begins to load.

 

Just some thoughts from a former pitcher! 😎

Edited October 20, 2020 by moehogan

[golfsticks]

1 hour ago, moehogan said:

The pitcher’s “tuck” is the position where the lead leg is unweighted and is raised parallel to the ground just prior to its stride to the plate. At this point the pitcher also has maximum body coil so I saw that as P4ish. So P5 would then be the first part of the stride as the arm starts to extend behind him and the right wrist begins to load.

 

Just some thoughts from a former pitcher! 😎

 

Good thoughts, and I like where you positioned P4ish, I think that would be it. 

 

I was thinking this would be a 'tuck' but not sure, never pitched, but all throws have some tucking going on,  I believe.    I've not seen a pitcher not have palmar flexion (tucking the glove) in the lead hand in order to accelerate that entire side-piece out of the way.   What say you Mr. Spahn, are there 2 tucks in the game, or is there a name for tucking the glove hand this way?

Edited October 20, 2020 by golfsticks

[moehogan]

49 minutes ago, golfsticks said:

 

Good thoughts, and I like where you positioned P4ish, I think that would be it. 

 

I was thinking this would be a 'tuck' but not sure, never pitched, but all throws have some tucking going on,  I believe.    I've not seen a pitcher not have palmar flexion (tucking the glove) in the lead hand in order to accelerate that entire side-piece out of the way.   What say you Mr. Spahn, are there 2 tucks in the game, or is there a name for tucking the glove hand this way?

P5 !!!

 

Sorry, looks like I’m using out of date pitching terminology. The “tuck” I was taught is now called the “leg lift”. 

 

Yes, you’re right, he is “tucking” his glove. Some coaches teach that but some say it serves no purpose and just adds an unnecessary movement.

[GreatStrike]

Andy - again, thanks for the note. My reply to you is here on the forum as I promised.

 

Yes, your experience is spot on - perfect!  With a 'swinging' golf swing (where you pull on the clubshaft lengthwise [longitudinally] in lieu of applying hand/finger force to the side of the grip/shaft), there is absolutely no need to use the trail arm to add power to the swing. The trail arm/hand only needs to help support the arm/shoulder structure. As the Dan Martin video (below) will explain, attempting to add right arm/hand almost always destroys the swing. And, as former tour player John Erickson said about a 'swinging' golf swing; the right arm is passive all the way down.

 

Andy, your results are exactly as they should be - amazing effortless power and exceptional consistency - as long as you don't intentionally do anything in an attempt to keep increasing the clubhead speed through impact at the bottom, or try to use your trail arm/hand to add speed. If you haven't already rid yourself of that bad habit (that ~95% of all amateur golfers make), it shouldn't take you long at all before you totally stop intentionally trying to increase the speed beyond P6, or to try to add speed by using the trail arm/hand. The Dan Martin video (below) will confirm this and help explain what happens to the swing.

 

As for the naysayers here - forget about them - you now have your very own knowledge and proof based on what you personally have experienced...and that is all that matters!    

 

I'd have a good feeling that your current handicap of 12.1 will very quickly drop to low single digits in no time. Good luck to you!

 

 

[GreatStrike]

Andy - Here is a video with a slightly different perception on the same exact method. Peter Knight confirms that the task is the same - to send the force straight down the clubshaft. What destroys most all amateur golf swings is trying to force the clubhead to move toward the target. 

 

Once you learn to 'swing' the golf club, then it's just a matter of getting into position where your golf swing runs the clubhead into the golf ball. It's a different way of thinking about what needs to happen. Practically all amateurs don't separate those two tasks ('swinging' a golf club & running the swinging clubhead into the golf ball) - instead they combine the two actions inclusively into one process event, which makes their method certain to fail.

 

Here's an example of what I mean. I give you a weight on the end of a string and ask that you knock an apple off a fence post with the swinging weight. How will you accomplish this task? You have two choices. 1) Try to swing the weight at the apple, or 2) separate the two tasks and first get the weight swinging at maximum speed and then move into position where your swinging weight runs into the apple. Of course the correct choice is #2. Did you know that most all adult male amateur golfers choose to swing their golf club like choice #1? Here's the kicker - even when people know they should separate the two tasks it is [still] very common for people to try to do something totally unnecessary (flick, add force or movement) in an effort move the weight toward their target, which destroys the swinging action.  

 

It makes no difference how you personally envision the best method of how to 'swing' a golf club (firing water or marbles down and out the tip end of the clubshaft, or pulling the grip off the clubshaft, or trying to rip the clubshaft from the clubhead), but with a 'swinging' golf swing the golfer must use centrifugal↔centripetal force to swing the golf club -  and then as a separate process event the golfer must plan on running the clubhead into the ball. To do that you must act as though the clubshaft is made of something very pliable or flexible like rope, and you must pull on it lengthwise (longitudinally) so it becomes straight and under stretch tension...as it moves in a wide downward arc to around P6. Then it's just a matter of running the swinging clubhead into the golf ball. When you learn to separate the two tasks the act of striking a golf ball with maximum speed, energy and accuracy becomes so much easier...and the game of golf becomes much easier and so much more fun too. 

 

Just because the clubshaft of a golf club is semi-rigid and cannot be stretched lengthwise (longitudinal), don't think for a nanosecond that performing as-if you can stretch the clubshaft won't turn your golf club instantly into a high-energy, explosive weapon when striking golf balls. If you've ever watched a professional make effortless-looking swings that result in unbelievable distance and ball flight characteristics, and wonder how in the world he/she does it - look no further than the tremendous power harnessed by clubshaft 'stretch tension' using centrifugal↔centripetal force that provides that enormous energy when striking a golf ball.   

 

I hope that helps...   

 

PS - Is there any question why most golfers don't understand how training aids like the Orange Whip, with a really flexible shaft, are supposed to be used? The answer lies in exactly what the typical amateur golfer tries to do (as I've explained above) when swinging moving his golf club. He's not 'swinging' it...  

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Nail_It

[GreatStrike]

Michael - The simple explanation is to pull on the clubshaft lengthwise (in the direction of the red arrow on the image below) beginning at start-down, as if you are attempting to 'stretch the clubshaft'. Continue trying to stretch the shaft 'only' in its lengthwise direction as your body unwinds. As your body unwinds your hand path will track in a circular arc. This circular arc should be kept as wide as reasonably possible as you continue to stretch the shaft 'only' in its lengthwise direction during the first part of the downswing. The hand path should not become narrow or be directed straight down toward the golf ball. (Also, it is presumed that your clubshaft will be in-plane and aligned to point generally at your target at the top of the backswing.)  

 

Once your lead arm gets beyond P5 (lead arm parallel to ground) the wide hand path arc will suddenly become a much smaller radius arc which (due to physics) will automatically and naturally do three things: 1) very quickly release (uncock) the lead wrist, 2) tremendously speed-up the clubhead, and 3) perfectly square the clubface. Beyond P5, when the hand path arc radius becomes much smaller, the natural centripetal↔centrifugal force will be so great and will happen so fast that if you attempt to add any muscular force, or attempt to manipulate the lag angle, or try to change the clubface alignment it will destroy the swinging action.  In other words, there's no need for any added help by intentionally using the forearms, wrists or hands to do anything. The trail arm is passive and only helps to provide solidity to the arms/shoulder structure.  

 

It's important that you understand that when you 'stretch the clubshaft' longitudinally lengthwise you create the necessary tension in the shaft needed to bring about a centripetal↔centrifugal force golf swing - much the same as the stretch tension necessary to swing a weight on the end of a string. Without this in-line, lengthwise, longitudinal shaft tension a 'swing' simply cannot possibly happen. It is absolutely impossible! Without a 'swinging' golf swing the golfer's only remaining means to move the golf club is by using muscular physical effort applied to the 'side' of the clubshaft at the grip. 

 

When the golf club is swung using centripetal↔centrifugal force by 'stretching the shaft' many positive things that frustrate most all amateur golfers start falling nicely into place quickly and easily. 'Lag' becomes natural - stretching the shaft creates lag, and it naturally retains the lag angle as well as releases the lag angle all without any physical effort or timing. Flipping is an impossibility. Shoulder, arms and elbow positions suddenly fall perfectly into proper place when your focus is on 'stretching the shaft'. When a golf club is swung using a 'swinging' golf swing the clubface squares naturally due to it design - physically trying to square the clubface is no longer an issue. When the golfer focuses on 'stretching the shaft' from the top the golfer's kinematic sequence is primed to perform as it should with proper weight shift and balance. 

 

I cannot stress enough how important it is to accept the fact that 'stretching the shaft' of the semi-rigid golf clubshaft is an absolute necessity - just as much as it is an absolute necessity when swinging a weight on the end of a string. A golf swing with stretch tension of the shaft gives the golf club explosive energy - which for most amateurs is both surprising and astonishing. Without a longitudinal (lengthwise) stress on the shaft there can be no 'swing'...  

 

I hope this helps you as well as others...                     

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Nail_It

[torbill]

This is just total nonsense, from a mechanics/physics standpoint.  The longitudinal stretch of the shaft is an effect, not a cause.  

 

At the top of the backswing there is no centrifugal force because there is no rotation - the club is momentarily stationary as the transition occurs.  And what causes the club to begin to move? - a torque that is applied by the golfer.  The torque is the cause of motion.  The buildup of centrifugal force is the effect of the motion that is created by application of torque, and nothing more.  The centrifugal force causes *nothing* other than an outward pull on the club that has to be resisted by the golfer, or the club will fly away.  This is Mechanics 101a.

 

Want to put power into your swing?  Make the clubshaft BEND from the top.  Look at Woods in the second frame. He is BENDING the clubshaft by applying a large torque.  Try to make the shaft bend like that by pulling and stretching the shaft.  Impossible.. 

 

Feeling the centrifugal force of the shaft pulling on the hands and arms might be a good feel for pacing the swing and keeping everything in sync.  I don’t deny that.  But there will never be a centrifugal force for you to feel unless you apply a torque to make the club rotate.  

 

Mechanics 101a says you wont’ get far if you don’t apply a torque at the top and make the shaft BEND.  Try that for a swing thought and see what happens.  As I said earlier I have a couple of degrees in mechanical engineering, and I know what I’m talking about.   

[GreatStrike]

15 hours ago, torbill said:

This is just total nonsense, from a mechanics/physics standpoint.  The longitudinal stretch of the shaft is an effect, not a cause.  

 

At the top of the backswing there is no centrifugal force because there is no rotation - the club is momentarily stationary as the transition occurs.  And what causes the club to begin to move? - a torque that is applied by the golfer.  The torque is the cause of motion.  The buildup of centrifugal force is the effect of the motion that is created by application of torque, and nothing more.  The centrifugal force causes *nothing* other than an outward pull on the club that has to be resisted by the golfer, or the club will fly away.  This is Mechanics 101a.

 

Want to put power into your swing?  Make the clubshaft BEND from the top.  Look at Woods in the second frame. He is BENDING the clubshaft by applying a large torque.  Try to make the shaft bend like that by pulling and stretching the shaft.  Impossible.. 

 

Feeling the centrifugal force of the shaft pulling on the hands and arms might be a good feel for pacing the swing and keeping everything in sync.  I don’t deny that.  But there will never be a centrifugal force for you to feel unless you apply a torque to make the club rotate.  

 

Mechanics 101a says you wont’ get far if you don’t apply a torque at the top and make the shaft BEND.  Try that for a swing thought and see what happens.  As I said earlier I have a couple of degrees in mechanical engineering, and I know what I’m talking about.   

 

The reason the shaft 'temporarily' bends (i.e. 2nd frame) is because the torso is unwinding and that is causing the shaft to bend. It should be clear to you that a strong pulling force is being applied in-line (longitudinally) on the clubshaft. As the downswing progresses the shaft will straighten, becomes disfigured due to the clubhead weight and will eventually become bent forward. Of course there is a torque that is applied to the golf club by the body unwinding which drives the lead arm and hand path in a circular arc. That should be apparent. What helps kick off a 'swinging' action is the golfer pulling on the clubshaft longitudinally as the golfer's torso unwinds. That intent is what causes the golfer to actually start his kinematic sequence.  

 

Your comment that what I have provided is 'nonsense' - is itself complete nonsense. You are attempting to convey a gibberish opinion that goes against what plenty of top golf teachers and tour players teach and advocate. Your degree in mechanical engineering doesn't impress me much!   Now, if you want to swing move the golf club like a lumberjack heaving an axe using a lot of physical muscle strength applied to the side of the shaft then your belief makes some sense, but that's not what is being discussed...therefore what you are attempting to portray is total rubbish and complete hogwash - clearly from someone that really enjoys being argumentative and throwing out attacks which oftentimes drives well-meaning people away from GolfWRX and from offering helpful advice. The posts I've see from you are never helpful, and your posts remind me of an old codger trying his best to be recognized. You're being recognized alright - for what you are! Someone had to say it...I just did!!!     

 

   

Edited November 6, 2020 by Nail_It

[torbill]

What I am trying to do is dispel some of the nonsense that is being taught in golf, nonsense that I along with many others have been victimized by, and that you seem to want to perpetuate.  And if it is being taught by some top teachers, then so be it.  I want readers of this topic to understand that “stretching the shaft” makes no sense, on basic mechanical principles.  What I am saying is that you want to do exactly what a lumberjack does, which is to apply torque by unwinding the body.  That’s what squares an axe head and a golf club.  Try chopping a tree by pulling on the axe handle.  Try hitting a baseball by pulling on the bat handle.  Try hitting a tennis ball by pulling on the racket handle.  Try hitting a slap shot by pulling on the hockey stick.    

[KMeloney]

I don't see where you two are in disagreement about the body unwinding. This discussion has been about force applied on the grip of the club, and whether it's more beneficial to pull on the grip along the shaft, or to apply force to the side of the grip -- and I don't see anyone advocating that either be done without body rotation.

[Zitlow]

20 hours ago, torbill said:

This is just total nonsense, from a mechanics/physics standpoint.  The longitudinal stretch of the shaft is an effect, not a cause.  

 

At the top of the backswing there is no centrifugal force because there is no rotation - the club is momentarily stationary as the transition occurs.  And what causes the club to begin to move? - a torque that is applied by the golfer.  The torque is the cause of motion.  The buildup of centrifugal force is the effect of the motion that is created by application of torque, and nothing more.  The centrifugal force causes *nothing* other than an outward pull on the club that has to be resisted by the golfer, or the club will fly away.  This is Mechanics 101a.

 

Want to put power into your swing?  Make the clubshaft BEND from the top.  Look at Woods in the second frame. He is BENDING the clubshaft by applying a large torque.  Try to make the shaft bend like that by pulling and stretching the shaft.  Impossible.. 

 

Feeling the centrifugal force of the shaft pulling on the hands and arms might be a good feel for pacing the swing and keeping everything in sync.  I don’t deny that.  But there will never be a centrifugal force for you to feel unless you apply a torque to make the club rotate.  

 

Mechanics 101a says you wont’ get far if you don’t apply a torque at the top and make the shaft BEND.  Try that for a swing thought and see what happens.  As I said earlier I have a couple of degrees in mechanical engineering, and I know what I’m talking about.   

 

There's something to be said for flexing the shaft.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Zitlow

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, Zitlow said:

 

There's something to be said for flexing the shaft.

 

 

So, what is said for using a more flexible shaft that can be made to flex [even] more?  

[GreatStrike]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Nail_It
add image

[b_f_c_99]

Nail It.  The impression I get from you is that most people should learn how to ‘swing’ the club rather than hit it is because most people are just terrible athletically.  Who on tour right now would you consider swingers?  I see a whole lot of hitters,  not a chance you would convince any of them to trust something they don’t have the perception of control over.  Personally I find most people are pretty capable of being hitters once they clear out the swinger fundamentals of soft hands, low and slow backswing , lead with the left hand, passive release stuff.  Most of that is polar opposite of what their natural inclination is.

Edited November 7, 2020 by b_f_c_99
Spelling

[GreatStrike]

21 hours ago, b_f_c_99 said:

Nail It.  The impression I get from you is that most people should learn how to ‘swing’ the club rather than hit it is because most people are just terrible athletically.  Who on tour right now would you consider swingers?  I see a whole lot of hitters,  not a chance you would convince any of them to trust something they don’t have the perception of control over.  Personally I find most people are pretty capable of being hitters once they clear out the swinger fundamentals of soft hands, low and slow backswing , lead with the left hand, passive release stuff.  Most of that is polar opposite of what their natural inclination is.

 

I'm not advocating one method over the other. It totally depends on the individual. Sadly, most amateur golfers incorporate various elements of both methods into their golf swings that prevent them from achieving their abilities. 

 

Adam Scott and Rory McIlroy are excellent examples of swingers, with hitters being Arnold Palmer and Jon Rahm. Some tour players are difficult to determine whether they are swingers or hitters, yet there is a big difference in 'how' the club is used (rope vs axe handle or cracking a whip vs driving a hammer). Some of the key differences that are usually (not always) noticeable to the eye are: wide downswing arc with swingers, significant lead hip movement in downswing with hitters, flat to slight cup in lead wrist at top with swingers, tight grip of trail hand with hitters, lots of work effort with hitters, short compact quick swing for hitters, smooth free-slowing and effortless looking swing for swingers, forearm/hands/body to square clubface for hitters, hitters rotate hard to post-impact, and of course hitters use the trail arm to drive the club with force applied primarily on the side of the shaft.

 

You will almost never see successful young junior (AJGA) golfers with a hitters method - same goes for females, including the female tour players. The reason why is because they are simply not strong enough for the hitting method to be the best choice. For a hitters method to be the best choice the individual is almost always big framed and strong. Choosing hitting versus swinging really has nothing to do with athleticism because that quality (or lack thereof) runs the gamut throughout. 

 

It's far more natural for adult men that didn't learn the game as a young child to think there is only one way to swing a golf club - with brute muscular strength that a lumberjack would approve of. They almost always discount the theory of 'swinging' as being a feasible alternative even when they see a swinger effortlessly swing the golf club. As you stated - (at least for adult men) the natural inclination is to muscle the golf club.  

 

I do believe that most amateur golfers (who almost always have way too much combination of hitting and swinging in their golf swing), unless they are satisfied with their golf swing and their ball striking ability and handicap, should [at least] learn to 'swing' the golf club. Why? Because anybody can play outstanding golf with a 'swinging' golf swing, but only a select few percentage of strong young men are able to use a hitting method that equals a swinger. 

 

Swinging is actually far easier to learn in my opinion than hitting, and is much more fun and rewarding.  

 

The takeaway for golfers that are not improving beyond mid-handicap level is this - learn or at least experiment with both methods so you will know which method is best for you personally, and so you understand and can reject trying to incorporate conflicting elements of both methods...which is what 95% of amateur golfers unknowingly do that prevents them from reaching their abilities.  

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Nail_It
grammar

[Zitlow]

19 hours ago, Nail_It said:

 

So, what is said for using a more flexible shaft that can be made to flex [even] more?  

 

Before you switch to a more flexible shaft it would be a good idea to check with a club fitter. 

 

 

[GreatStrike]

On 11/6/2020 at 3:40 PM, Zitlow said:

There's something to be said for flexing the shaft.

 

On 11/6/2020 at 4:53 PM, Nail_It said:

So, what is said for using a more flexible shaft that can be made to flex [even] more?  

 

5 hours ago, Zitlow said:

Before you switch to a more flexible shaft it would be a good idea to check with a club fitter. 

 

Haha - I was being facetious!  The point being, hitters typically prefer using a stiffer clubshaft yet their intent is to sustain the stress flex bend in the shaft during the downswing...[thus my facetious question] why doesn't he want a more flexible shaft that can be made to flex even more.  

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by Nail_It
grammar

[GreatStrike]

Here is someone that is demonstrating both 'swinging' and 'hitting'. Other than Lynn Blake demonstrating the two methods it is rather unusual to see the same person demonstrating the two different methods.

 

 

Swinging

 

Swinging action
• The swinger relies on centrifugal force to move his golf club.

• The main action involved here is to throw the clubhead into orbit, down and out, hold on to it, and let centrifugal force do its job without attempting to disrupt its action.
• It’s easier said than done because any attempt to "add to the shot (hit stronger)" or manipulate the clubface will disrupt centrifugal force and will result in steering disaster.

• Swinging is the most common way of moving the golf club because it does not rely on muscular power but rather on the player’s skill to use centrifugal force.
• As a result 99% of the children start to play golf as swingers because they lack muscular force and a majority of them remain swingers as they grow older.

• This is also the reason why many club pros who started playing golf as youngsters (and as swingers) only teach swinging to their students.
• While this is okay if their students are children, it can make things tougher with adults starting to play golf because those adults’ natural instincts is to use muscular force as they’ve learned to do in their everyday life and less skilled to use centrifugal force.

 

 

Hitting

         

Hitting action
• The hitter on the other hand does not rely on centrifugal force but on muscular force instead.

• The main action involved here is a muscular thrust of the right arm against the primary lever assembly (that is the left arm plus the club as a whole).
• The clubhead is not thrown into orbit. Instead, the hitter pushes radially (against the radius) against the shaft with his right arm only.

• Hitting is less commonly used by golfers (at least consciously) because golfing instruction is mainly about Swinging. 

 

 

The takeaway for golfers that are not improving beyond mid-handicap level is this - learn or at least experiment with both methods so you will know which method is best for you personally, and so you understand and can reject trying to incorporate conflicting elements of both methods...which is what 95% of amateur golfers unknowingly do that prevents them from reaching their abilities.  

    

Edited November 8, 2020 by Nail_It

[GreatStrike]

Member @blehnhard has publicly said that he has lost a significant amount of distance as he has aged...probably more than expected. For those that may not be aware, Bruce played on the PGA tour for a number of years and has acknowledged that his golf swing is a 'hitting' golf swing. It makes perfect sense that with a 'hitting' golf swing that Bruce's distance would drop off earlier and in a more drastic amount as he aged than if he had a 'swinging' golf swing that doesn't count nearly as much on using the golfer's muscular strength.

 

I don't know if Bruce would care to say anything about this, but nevertheless it's an interesting topic to keep in mind as we all age.     

[Lefthook]

On 11/6/2020 at 5:21 AM, torbill said:

What I am trying to do is dispel some of the nonsense that is being taught in golf, nonsense that I along with many others have been victimized by, and that you seem to want to perpetuate.  And if it is being taught by some top teachers, then so be it.  I want readers of this topic to understand that “stretching the shaft” makes no sense, on basic mechanical principles.  What I am saying is that you want to do exactly what a lumberjack does, which is to apply torque by unwinding the body.  That’s what squares an axe head and a golf club.  Try chopping a tree by pulling on the axe handle.  Try hitting a baseball by pulling on the bat handle.  Try hitting a tennis ball by pulling on the racket handle.  Try hitting a slap shot by pulling on the hockey stick.    

I wish you the best of luck. I am utterly surprised that Nail_It gets away with his charlatanic swing ideas. I am equally surprised that the moderators let him advertice his own services which seem to be equally shallow. His alter ego is Dan Martin, and his videos are shockingly bad. My "favourite" video is one where he first demonstrate his "rope pulling" with his rope device, then in the next frame, with a real club in his hand, he does a plane shift ... which is the right thing to do, but totally impossible if the shaft is a rope and you try to do what he says you should do. The guy doesn't even understand his own swing.

 

Only a few years ago he would have been eaten alive by truly competent professionals here on golfwrx. It was quite rough a few years back, and I thought it was too much for a while - and maybe it was, but now I miss the quality control that came with it. 

[berndgeurts]

Heated discussion... Just wanted to say I'm a thrower. Recently switched and very happy with the result. NTC  from Monte helped with it.

[blehnhard]

Just to set the facts straight regarding my "tour" experience.  I was a club professional for 28 years before qualifying for an exempt spot (7th at Q)for the 1993 Senior PGA Tour (Champions Tour). I played in 30 events that year with a best finish of T2. I was not an exempt member for the 94 thru 97 seasons.  I did Monday qualifying and played mini tour.  I had a "partial" exemption for the 98 season (13th at Q) which got me into 17 events.  All told, I played about 65 events.

 

As a club professional, I played in 9 tour events (5 Kemper Opens and 4 AB Classics) as well as qualifying for 4 PGA Championships and 1 US Open.

 

I have enjoyed the discussions in this thread, but am disappointed to see "personal" attacks on anyone who posts. Differences of opinion and lively discussion help everyone learn.  There is certainly more that one was to "move" a golf club.

[Circaflex]

On 10/20/2020 at 1:37 PM, golfsticks said:

 

Good thoughts, and I like where you positioned P4ish, I think that would be it. 

 

I was thinking this would be a 'tuck' but not sure, never pitched, but all throws have some tucking going on,  I believe.    I've not seen a pitcher not have palmar flexion (tucking the glove) in the lead hand in order to accelerate that entire side-piece out of the way.   What say you Mr. Spahn, are there 2 tucks in the game, or is there a name for tucking the glove hand this way?

When I was taught to pitch, you did the tuck with your left hand and pulled that to your chest, creating the rubber band like feeling and because of this the right arm just flows.

 

 

Now with the topic at hand, I have no idea what I am, which sounds like an issue in itself. I dont quite understand what I watched the few posts up; one looks silky smooth and the other looks more robotic, yet powerful. I think I lean towards "hitter," but feel more comfortable when I am "swinging."

Edited November 8, 2020 by Circaflex

[torbill]

14 hours ago, Lefthook said:

I wish you the best of luck. I am utterly surprised that Nail_It gets away with his charlatanic swing ideas. I am equally surprised that the moderators let him advertice his own services which seem to be equally shallow. His alter ego is Dan Martin, and his videos are shockingly bad. My "favourite" video is one where he first demonstrate his "rope pulling" with his rope device, then in the next frame, with a real club in his hand, he does a plane shift ... which is the right thing to do, but totally impossible if the shaft is a rope and you try to do what he says you should do. The guy doesn't even understand his own swing.

 

Only a few years ago he would have been eaten alive by truly competent professionals here on golfwrx. It was quite rough a few years back, and I thought it was too much for a while - and maybe it was, but now I miss the quality control that came with it. 

 

I never heard of Dan Martin, so I looked him up on YouTube.  I watched three videos.  There are different ways to swing a golf club, and my comments haven’t been about swing theories.  My comments have been about the basic mechanical principles that apply to anything that comprises forces and motions.

 

I had no problems with the videos that I saw.  I don’t like a centered swing for older golfers such as myself, as it is hard on the body, especially the lower back.  But that’s a personal thing, not a physics thing.

 

I saw one thing that I particularly like, and agree with, and that in my view gets far too little attention.  There is a video on how to hit the ball farther.  In it he talks about slowing the upper body and arms near impact, with the focus on the lead arm.  I think he is right about this.  I think about Jordan Spieth and his chicken wing sort of finish.  He is losing distance.  In my particular swing, which is based on Jimmy Ballard principles, I achieve what Dan Martin is saying by keeping my lead elbow on my body through the hitting area.  This is a way of achieving exactly what he is advocating.  If we look at Hogan we see that his left elbow was basically on his body as he went through the ball and to the finish.  In slow motion it  looked almost like his left arm was going to break.   Here is a video clip of Hogan demonstrating his method on the old Ed Sullivan show.  Play it back at 1/4 speed.  Everybody focuses on Hogan’s trail elbow.  Don’t do this.  Look at the way that his lead elbow stays almost on his body and folds.  It looks almost like his left arm is going to break.  This is exactly the principle that is discussed in the Martin video.  Another way of feeling this is to swing with the elbows staying close to each other as much as possible throughout the swing, which has the effect of slowing the left elbow through impact.  Enough swing theory.  Now I am going back to physics.

 

     

[GreatStrike]

4 hours ago, NotThatGuyorAmI? said:

All rather over my head, and probably pointless as it relates to the peripherals of the golf swing which vary by person, but Nail-It’s posts bring to mind this from Sasho MacKenzie, who using Adam Scott (whom Nial-It classifies as a swinger) as an example seems to be saying the downswing begins with application of force by the right hand.

 

Some ideas expressed above seem strange.  A hitter cannot avoid centrifugal force using any more than he can avoid gravity.  A swinger has to use the muscles of the legs and hips for power or there just will not be enough power in the system to do the work.

 

Conclusion (assuming the above commenters are good golfers): you don’t have to be a genius or know physics to be a good golfer.

 

But you knew that.

 

Sasho nicely explained how club rotation is caused by force moving away from the club's center-of-mass, but (at 5:50 in the video) he only briefly mentioned that a force passing right through the center-of-mass doesn't cause the club to rotate. There was no reason for Sasho to do so but, he never acknowledged that many professionals intentionally move the club longitudinally or lengthwise at the beginning of the downswing (with the force passing through the center-of-mass). Be that as it may, Sasho was only addressing how a club [in space] reacts to a moment-of-force being applied to the handle. Yet at 6:30 in the video he shows three image frames of Adam Scott's club moving (rotating), and correctly states that for the club to rotate there clearly must be a force being applied...however Sasho fails to acknowledge for sure where that force originates. Adam Scott's torso and shoulders clearly started unwinding, which in turn causes the club to move (rotate) without any intentional force applied by either hand. If the torso had not [clearly] moved from frame 1 to frame 2 and frame 2 to frame 3 then he could say that hand force was the cause of the club rotation, but that was definitely not the case at all because Adam Scott's torso was clearly in the process of unwinding which caused forces to be applied to the club's handle via the hands but originating due to the unwinding and tilting torso. Sasho acknowledges (at 8:12 in the video) that he doesn't know exactly the force that Adam Scott is applying, but then quickly brushes off that important piece of [lacking] information by stating something about basing it on a Japanese instrument that measure forces. 

 

I certainly don't have an issue with what Sasho stated about moment-of-force applied to the club's handle and how it rotates the club if the force is applied 'away' from the center-of-mass, but I wish he had used different set of image frames showing how a lot of elite golfers (including Adam Scott) intentionally move the club longitudinally from transition where the moment-of-force is not applied 'away' from the center-of-mass but instead passes right through the center-of-mass which does not cause the club to rotate - and when force is applied along the center-of-mass then club rotation only starts happening because the torso (shoulders) is unwinding. 

 

As a final comment pertaining to the Sasho video, a lot of experts believe the golf club's center-of-mass should include the golfers hands, which would move the center-of-mass up the shaft and close to where the grip meets the shaft. The reason this is thought to be a more accurate point of where the center-of-mass should be is because the golfer's hands and fingers are attached by wrapping them around the club's grip and should actually be counted as more a part of the golf club itself than not.    

 

 

This topic and video actually plays right into the point I am making about pulling on the clubshaft longitudinally (lengthwise). When you pull on the clubshaft longitudinally (lengthwise) the moment-of-force passes through the center-of-mass instead of away from the center-of-mass, and this prevents the clubshaft from rotating (another way of saying that it helps prevent wrist 'uncocking' or casting). So, by pulling on the clubshaft longitudinally (lengthwise) from the top or at transition it nicely and neatly retains the wrist c0ck and prevents casting. (To cast or uncock the golfer must intentionally or unwittingly apply force to the shaft that is 'away' from the club's center-of-mass. Essentially this 'away' force can be said to being applied to the 'side' of the shaft.) If the golfer can apply force longitudinally 'along' the clubshaft then he will easily retain his wrist c0ck or 'lag angle'. As the golfer unwinds his torso during the downswing, as long as the golfer keeps applying force longitudinally 'along' the clubshaft (as his torso unwinds) for the first half of the downswing his wrist c0ck will be easily sustained until centripetal↔centrifugal forces naturally uncocks his wrist with no intentional muscular involvement or timing necessary. As the downswing progresses the hand path will naturally follow a nice wide circular arc since the golfer continues pulling the clubshaft longitudinally until the centripetal↔centrifugal forces become so strong it overtakes the golfer's force. Purposely holding the lag angle or trying to time the lag angle release is totally unnecessary. Also unnecessary is any muscular involvement to square the clubface. This is a 'swinging' golf swing. 

  

Edited November 8, 2020 by Nail_It
added comment

[GreatStrike]

1 hour ago, torbill said:

 

I never heard of Dan Martin, so I looked him up on YouTube.  I watched three videos.  There are different ways to swing a golf club, and my comments haven’t been about swing theories.  My comments have been about the basic mechanical principles that apply to anything that comprises forces and motions.

 

I had no problems with the videos that I saw.  I don’t like a centered swing for older golfers such as myself, as it is hard on the body, especially the lower back.  But that’s a personal thing, not a physics thing.

 

I saw one thing that I particularly like, and agree with, and that in my view gets far too little attention.  There is a video on how to hit the ball farther.  In it he talks about slowing the upper body and arms near impact, with the focus on the lead arm.  I think he is right about this.  I think about Jordan Spieth and his chicken wing sort of finish.  He is losing distance.  In my particular swing, which is based on Jimmy Ballard principles, I achieve what Dan Martin is saying by keeping my lead elbow on my body through the hitting area.  This is a way of achieving exactly what he is advocating.  If we look at Hogan we see that his left elbow was basically on his body as he went through the ball and to the finish.  In slow motion it  looked almost like his left arm was going to break.   Here is a video clip of Hogan demonstrating his method on the old Ed Sullivan show.  Play it back at 1/4 speed.  Everybody focuses on Hogan’s trail elbow.  Don’t do this.  Look at the way that his lead elbow stays almost on his body and folds.  It looks almost like his left arm is going to break.  This is exactly the principle that is discussed in the Martin video.  Another way of feeling this is to swing with the elbows staying close to each other as much as possible throughout the swing, which has the effect of slowing the left elbow through impact.  Enough swing theory.  Now I am going back to physics.

 

     

 

I think this must be the video you're referring to:

 

 

Here is the entire Library of Dan Martin Golf Videos

[Lefthook]

4 hours ago, torbill said:

I saw one thing that I particularly like, and agree with, and that in my view gets far too little attention.  There is a video on how to hit the ball farther.  In it he talks about slowing the upper body and arms near impact, with the focus on the lead arm.  I think he is right about this.  .....  Now I am going back to physics.

He is 100% wrong when he claims that stepping on the breaks creates speed. In the video, he reduces the swing radius when he stops his hands, so the angular speed goes up, but the swing speed doesn't. You seem to have a fair grasp on physics, so you should understand this: Clubhead speed is created in real time, and all the power is channeled through the hands. The more effort you put in, and for the longer duration you do it, the more swing speed you will get. McKenzie has explained this simple fact very well in one or two videos, btw.

 

In a well-sequenced swing, the release will slow down the hands and shoulders. It's an opportunity for the golfer to apply a lot of force at low speeds and thus create more clubhead speed without moving hands and shoulders at ridiculous speeds. Deliberately slowing down is wasting power at best, worst case is that and a horrible flip. What he advices us to do in his speed video is very counter-productive.

 

 

[GreatStrike]

Henny Bogan knew to pull on the clubshaft longitudinally and create a wide circular arc hand path.  

 

[moehogan]

2 hours ago, Nail_It said:

Henny Bogan knew to pull on the clubshaft longitudinally and create a wide circular arc hand path.  

 

Yea, but he pulled it with his RIGHT hand from P4 to P6, then pushed it from P6 to the finish with his three right hands.